Contents of this page moved to Circular Reasoning
But don't go there, you'll be right back :)
bah... I must be tired... I just hit the link twice before I caught on...
Alternatively, "...Circular Reasoning, but you've already been there."
On a more serious note, Circular Reasoning occurs where a number of links in a chain of reasoning are proposed, each following logically from the last, but together forming a loop: A implies B, B implies C, C implies A. If all you have to work with are A, B and C, and no way of linking them to something external to the loop, you can't prove or disprove any one of them.
An easy way out is making one of them an axiom. The other two can then be inferred from the axiom.
The quintessential Circular Reasoning: God directed the writing of the Bible, therefore the Bible is true, therefore God exists and directed the writing of the Bible.
Nice try, there, pal -- why don't you go troll around someplace where properly documented living history has no value?
{I think it is a good example to illustrate the point. Whether it was done for spiteful reasons or not can only be guessed.}
"<...the bible is in no way a properly documented living history...>" How do you mean properly documented? It is quite astonishing, actually, how much of the history of the Bible has been verified as accurate. -- Bruce Pennington
What better example? Most everyone can relate to it regardless which side of the fence they occupy.
Well the OP is correct that the reasoning is circular. The implication might be that the statement is therefore not true - in the absence of actual evidence or some other more valid seasoning. Since we're only looking for an example here, it seems sufficient to assert that there exists other evidence to feed into the loop, which grounds the loop (true or false, let's not go there). This would serve as a continuation of the example, specifically "how to step out of the circular argument".
Indeed, Failure To Elucidate in this case is wont to cause Holy Wars. But then so is the elucidation... so maybe we do need another example.
This example is well-known, but not ideal, since the Bible neither claims that God directed its entire content, nor that its content is literal fact.
The argument above: "God directed the writing of the Bible, therefore the Bible is true, therefore God exists and directed the writing of the Bible." is a good example of bad logic. It fails on several levels. It begins with the assumption that God directed the writing of the Bible. It assumes that God is real. Therefore there is no need to bring the argument back around. It only works as "IF" "then" statements. IF God directed the writing of the Bible; THEN the Bible is true." the rest doesn't make sense because there is no need for the "therefore". The way it is originally written, God is already known to be real, and the "therefore" is redundant. -- Bruce Pennington
That's not valid, as any circular reasoning could be attacked in that way, not just that particular case.
After reading it again, I see your point. Thanks! Bruce Pennington
One of the Fallacious Arguments.
See original on c2.com 